Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise such increases—

(a) in the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section ten of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, being sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under that section.
(b) in the sums paid into the Exchequer under that section, being sums received by way of repayment of any sums so issued, or by way of interest thereon.

as may be attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) raising the limit on money borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation from eighty million pounds to one hundred and sixty million pounds and the limit on money borrowed by the British European Airways Corporation from thirty-five million pounds to sixty million pounds; or
(ii) authorising the Treasury to guarantee the payment of charges other than interest in respect of sums borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation under the said Act of the present Session.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF BORROWING POWERS OF AIR CORPORATIONS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: I have one or two questions I should like to put on this Clause, Sir Charles. On Second Reading, the Parliamentary

Secretary said, in connection with the sum of money referred to in the Clause:
Each Corporation's borrowing requirement is a net figure obtained by deducting from estimated total capital expenditure the sum which it should itself raise internally".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1390.]
This would appear, really, to beg the question which we put to him, namely, how was the estimated total capital expenditure arrived at? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) said on Second Reading, this figure ought to bear some relationship to the estimated total revenue of the Corporations in five years' time, and we are wondering whether the Minister has, in fact, arrived at such an estimate, and if he has, whether he would be good enough to tell us what that figure is.
Moreover, if he has an estimate of the revenue which it is expected will be received in about five years' time, I should have thought that he would have some clearer idea as to the routes from which the revenue would be collected. In that connection, of course, I am thinking of the South American service. Incidentally, I hope the Minister will not allow himself to be put off too readily by the statement that the South American service has never shown a profit.
I am not sure that that is absolutely accurate if one goes back to 1946. The returns were complicated by the mid-Atlantic route which, I think, was probably lumped in with the South American service; and, in any case, if that argument had been adopted, we should not now be running a service over the North Atlantic to the United States because, over the same period, I think it is very doubtful whether that service actually showed a profit.
The question I ask, therefore, is this: may we be told whether there is a figure of estimated total revenue in about five years' time, and, if so, how are the figures arrived at? The resultant figure was reached after deducting the amount which it was estimated would be forthcoming from internal finances. May we be told how that figure is arrived at? Is this to be from obsolescence account, or is it estimated that a great part of it will result from the surpluses at the end of the year's trading? Could the Minister give us some indication as to how he reached the


figure of money which will be forthcoming from internal financing?
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman, that he did tell us a little time ago that he was asking the Corporations to come to some common policy in connection with the writing off of aircraft. I am wondering whether he has made any progress in that direction, and if so, whether he can tell us what the policy is now to be.
Next, a question arises under the system which will be operating over the next two years, under the direction included in the last Finance Act, in accordance with which the Corporations, like all other nationalised bodies, will go to the Treasury for their borrowing requirements. At the end of the year, there will be a total sum of money outstanding. Part of that may well be a deficit as a result of the year's trading. The remainder will be money borrowed to purchase capital equipment, namely, aircraft. I imagine that the outstanding sum at the end of the year will be divided; part of it will be a temporary loan, and the remainder a permanent loan.
What will be the nature of this permanent loan? Will it be funded into some airways stock with a date? If so, what sort of date has the Minister in mind? What will be the rate of interest payable on such a loan? These are the questions which we have in mind. If the Minister can help us with some answers, we shall be able to make some progress.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I will certainly respond to what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) has just said, and try to give the House, quite shortly, the various facts for which he has asked.
First, there is the question of the Corporations' revenue. Of course, we have formed an estimate of what their revenue is likely to be, not only over the next five years but as far as we can see over about the next eight or nine years, which is really the period of which we are thinking in buying aircraft. Why I did not give these figures to the House, and why I must say that I think that I should, in the interests of the Corporations, give them now with considerable reserve, is that they must only be an estimate.
For instance, the hon. Member knows the changes that are to come in relation to fares. We cannot possibly compute how those changes will affect revenue until we know what the fare structure is likely to be. Therefore, these figures are, of necessity, based on the current fares and, of course, on the estimated traffic on the graphs which both Corporations keep of traffic expansion.
On that basis, B.O.A.C.'s revenue is expected to grow two and a half times in the next five years, that is to say, from £42 million to £105 million. It will grow three times by 1963–64. B.E.A. is not quite so good. In the next five years it anticipates that its revenue will grow only twice, that is, from £21 million to £45 million; but it will, again, grow about three times over the period from 1955–56 to 1963–64.
Those are very conservative estimates, as they should be, and they are only an approximation. It would be most unwise, I think, for the House or for anyone else to read into that some accurate presentation of what exactly the Corporations will be doing in those years. It is the best guess that the Corporations can make. I hope, myself, that they will do much better, but it would be most unwise for us to base this sort of estimate on anything but the lowest fair assumptions.
The hon. Gentleman's second point concerned make-up of the internal financing. The answer is that B.O.A.C.'s internal financing over the next five years amounts to £47 million, which is made up of obsolescence and depreciation, £31 million; and disposal of aircraft, £16 million. B.E.A.'s internal financing is made up of obsolescence and depreciation, £22¼ million; disposal of aircraft, £3 million; and surplus on revenue account, £¾ million.
As, I think, the hon. Member knows, the stock issues of both Corporations are detailed, in their accounts—B.O.A.C.'s, in page 49, and B.E.A.'s, in page 78. The Corporations do not require to redeem any of their stock before the prescribed date, and the stock regulations require them to set aside certain sums each year for the redemption of stock. The amounts standing to the credit of the redemption funds may be applied to redeeming the stock according to the terms of issue, to purchasing and extinguishing stock, or to investing in statutory


securities. B.O.A.C. has regularly used the moneys placed to the credit of the redemption fund in purchasing and extinguishing stock. On the other hand, B.E.A. has temporarily used the money for the purposes of its business.
11.15 a.m.
As to how the borrowing of Exchequer advances is to be funded, the position is that at the end of each financial year the sums advanced in the year at the same rate of interest will be consolidated, and repayment of the consolidated sums will then be made by equal instalments of principal, yearly or half-yearly at the option of the borrower, over a period of seven years.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the common policy for writing-off aircraft. The Corporations have not yet agreed a common policy with their auditors—it is not a very easy thing to do—but what I hope they will do, and, I think, are agreed in wishing to do it, is to set a fixed term of years—a normal commercial practice—rather than to have the somewhat complicated principles now being adopted such as writing-off tenths or twentieths of aircraft.
I hope that with that explanation the Committee will pass this Clause.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: May I ask the Minister to explain a little more fully the writing-off policy of which he has spoken? I was not quite clear how far he had got. The present arrangement seems quite ridiculous to the layman like myself, who does not understand a great deal of these matters. It seems ridiculous in the first year to write off practically nothing, in the second year a little more and, at the end of five

years, to write off about 50 per cent. I think that that is a wrong principle.
I think that the Minister is asking the Corporations now to try to get a uniform policy in both cases, which will be more sensible and defensible, but this matter has ben going on for a very long time. It was raised a long time ago, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick). I wonder how far the right hon. Gentleman has gone, and whether we can know within the next month or two that a policy has been agreed and that it will be the same policy for both Corporations?

Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The present position is not easy to understand and is, I think, generally wrong. B.E.A. has made a start, and some of its later aircraft will be written off in seven years. That is the sort of term of years—without committing the Corporations to that term of years—that I should like to see adopted by both Corporations. On the other matter, I certainly hope that it will be within the next month or two that agreement will be reached.

Mr. Strauss: And the policy will be the same for both Corporations?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SILO SUBSIDIES) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the payment of subsidies in respect of the construction or improvement of silos, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) all payments made in pursuance of schemes under the said Act for subsidies in respect of the carrying out of works for the construction or improvement of silos in the United Kingdom for the making and containing of silage, being works approved for the purposes of such a scheme at any time not earlier than the eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and fifty-six; and
(b) any other expenses of any Minister incurred in pursuance of the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SILO SUBSIDIES) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(SCHEMES FOR SILO SUBSIDIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

11.19 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Subsection (4, a) of this Clause gives the Minister powers to make provision
for defining the …works in respect of which payments may be made under the scheme.
It is quite obvious that one of the provisions must refer to the concrete approach to the silo, and I would ask the Minister to make sure that in any scheme which lays down for the farmers, and presents to the House, the apron of the silo is not made too small.
It is quite clear to me that if this Bill is to be any help to anyone at all it must be mainly the dairy farmer in the hill country and in the West. What with the cut in milk prices which is taking place, if the dairy farmer is to live at all he will be able to do so only if he keeps his labour requirements to the absolute minimum. These arrangements must go as far as possible towards satisfying that requirement of keeping labour costs down.
I agree with the statement I have read quite recently that farm buildings are factories in which "farm crops are converted into milk, meat or muck." Unfortunately, I would say, so many of the farm factories are old, dilapidated and inefficient. But that is by the way. Recently, a number of us went to Bulbourne to see the experiment in farm buildings conducted by the Farmers' Weekly.
There we saw the arrangements which were being made to enable cows to feed themselves directly from the silage clamp type silo with consequent saving of labour, but that method is only possible if the approach is kept reasonably free from mud. It is no use trying to save labour one way, by letting animals feed themselves from the silage clamp, if extra labour is required, for instance, in washing off the mud which is collected at the silo from the cows before they can be milked.
I believe that if we are to have this improvement adopted and silage made more extensively, especially in the West and in the hill country where the rainfall is heavier, there must be large concrete aprons. I rather think that the provision the Minister has in mind is a little small for the purpose. Perhaps he has safeguarded himself and will be able to answer on that matter to my satisfaction, but I hope that before he finally makes up his mind upon it he will go into it rather carefully.
Subsection (4 e) of the Clause tells us that a scheme may make provision:
as to the persons to whom payments may be made under the scheme in respect of any works.
In the rather unusual circumstances in which this Bill is accompanied in its passage through the House by the Minister's proposed scheme, I have been able to read what the Minister said about that subsection, and it is this:
Either an owner-occupier, landlord or tenant, or the last two jointly, may apply for grant, but in every case the project will be discussed with the occupier by officers of the appropriate Department.
In the advice to be tendered to a tenant when he is making an application, or has made an application, is it the intention of the officer who will do the job to make the tenant's position in relation to outgoing valuation quite clear? This seems to be important to the tenant. If he is to be persuaded to embark on a


scheme which may involve him in some expenditure and will add to the buildings on the farm, he must be safeguarded as to his outgoing valuation or he will not readily undertake it. I take it that the intention of the Minister is to make this quite clear, but I want to have it on record, so I ask him to assure us that he has thought of this and that it will be made an item in the outgoing valuation.
Obviously, if a silo building is to figure in the outgoing valuation the landlord would have to be consulted, but while the proposed scheme—that is, the scheme which I have seen—tells us that the project will in every case be discussed with the occupier, there is nothing there said about its being discussed with the landlord. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will note this particularly. Will he satisfy us that in every case where the occupier is making an application, because of the important aspect of the outgoing valuation, which may be involved, the matter will be discussed with the landlord? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, will be able to help the House about these matters. I shall be grateful if he will.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion has just said about the landlord's position, for I think it is very important; but I do so for a reason other than the one he put forward, although I agree with his. It seems to me that it ought to be a principle throughout all our agricultural policy that whenever the Government enter into the provision of fixed equipment then, automatically, the landlord, as well as the occupier, ought to have a say in the matter.
On Second Reading, I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would re-examine the Order which, we understood, was to implement subsection (4) of this Clause. I hope that, in the light of the debate which has taken place, and considering what has been virtually agreed with the National Farmers' Union, consideration may be given to the possibility of getting the small farmers to co-operate and I hope we may hear something about that from my hon. Friend today.
I would also ask my hon. Friend to say whether there is in his mind a minimum number of dairy cows actually in

milk which is to be regarded as the minimum before a grant is made under the Bill. Obviously, if anybody producing milk qualifies, a man with only two or three cows would be entitled to a considerable grant, and it would be payable, for instance, to the county council smallholders, of whom I have many in my constituency.
I am all for giving them every help we can, but there are cases where a little co-operation may be a very good thing and where it would be a great waste of money to give every single smallholder with a couple of cows the automatic right to apply for a grant under the scheme. It is largely a question of common sense. I appreciate that, and I am sure that the county committees will interpret it very well, certainly in my county, whose county committee is one of the best in the country.
Of course, when it is a matter for the county council, another local authority comes in, and we know that with local authorities there is sometimes delay, and that there is sometimes confiscation, but in my own county the authorities work very sweetly together on the whole. However, it is important we should have an assurance about this and some idea how the taxpayers' money is to be spent. I would emphasise yet again, what I have often emphasised in debates on agriculture, that those who are in agriculture are, of course, also taxpayers.

11.30 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): In answer, first, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) and his question about concrete aprons to silos, I would say that we intend that the area of an apron, to qualify for grant, will not normally exceed 50 per cent. of the floor of the silo or 50 square yards if that is greater.
The general idea of the scheme is to provide a 50 per cent. grant for the rudiments of an ordinary silo. We all realise that it will not be 50 per cent. of a more elaborate structure, but it will be 50 per cent. of an ordinary standard silo in an area where building costs are not higher than average. If a farmer wished to have a big apron which might be used for his feeding arrangements, or something of


that kind, then probably the grant would not amount to 50 per cent. in that instance; he could make any additional concrete arrangement he thought necessary but what we are intending to do is to provide a 50 per cent. grant on this very simple unit system which will cover the silo itself and the normal minimum requirements for working that silo.
Naturally, there will be a fair amount of flexibility in interpretation in different parts of the country as to the minimum requirements that the advisory officers in the area will think are necessary for the farmer to have for his silo. They would obviously vary somewhat from the east of the country to the west, according to the rainfall.
I should have thought that similar considerations would arise in deciding whether the farmer should be advised to have a roof, and where it might be left completely optional. That, broadly, would be the approach and, so far as we could, we should apply the grant to meet exactly what the farmer wanted; but we shall be limited by the actual definition in the scheme.
With regard to the important point mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East about the tenant farmer who puts in a silo, that is dealt with in a pamphlet which has already been issued. The pamphlet has been widely circulated during the past week since the House gave Second Reading approval to the Bill, and in it there is the statement:
Note for tenant farmers. For silos which are considered to be an 'improvement' under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the tenant should obtain the landlord's consent if the structure is to rank for compensation.
What will happen in practice is that the advisory officers will consult the occupier of the holding. If he is the owner-occupier no difficulty will arise, but if he is the tenant then his attention will be drawn to the fact that he should in his own interest consult the landlord in order to preserve his position under the Agricultural Holdings Act and to ensure that if a permanent improvement has been made to the holding under that Act he will qualify in the event of his outgoing from the holding.
I doubt whether it would be possible to require specific consultation with the

landlord by the Ministry on each application, but we feel that in this way we have done all that is humanly possible to protect the interests of the tenant. I feel certain that in practice it will work out all right. If as a result of that consultation the landlord wished to consult our advisory officers, we should be only too pleased for him to do so.
I turn to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) about co-operative schemes—several small farmers joining together to build a silo. We really feel that that will not arise. The scheme is devised in such a way that it is extremely flexible and will provide for the making of very small quantities of silage. The minimum quantity which will qualify is 20 tons. Twenty tons would be the product of, I suppose, a reasonably productive field of perhaps three acres. I cannot imagine that it would be usual to find anyone making less silage than that. In other words, it will cater for the needs of the very small farmer.
Bearing in mind the point made during the Second Reading that silage is extremely bulky material—it is, on average, only about 20 per cent. dry matter; the rest is water—it is normally not a practicable proposition to move it for anything but the shortest distances. Therefore, any co-operative schemes in which several farmers shared would ipso facto suffer from the defect that there would be fairly long haulage involved for some of the farmers. We have tried to meet the point from the other direction by making the scheme flexible enough to meet the needs of the smallest farmer.
That really deals with the second question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend about whether the farmer with two or three cows would qualify. The answer is that provided that his plan will be big enough to make a silage pit of 20 tons, he will qualify. I think that that will cover the needs of almost everybody.
What we are concerned with here is not only to help the commercial farmer but also to ensure that the grassland of this country, which is carrying a good deal of grass which is not economically used today, shall be economically used and shall thereby save feeding stuffs, a


large part of which are imported. Therefore, if a man with two or three cows who is not a commercial producer, makes use of this silo grant and thereby makes silage where he has not done so before and saves feeding stuffs, the national economy will benefit, good will come from the development and the taxpayer will get a good return for the grant.
I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied with my answer to his questions. The needs of the very small farmer are catered for by the flexible design of the scheme, and there is really no need for the provision of co-operative arrangements.

Major Legge-Bourke: Has my hon. Friend thought of the county council smallholdings and what the relationship of these would be with the county councils?

Mr. Nugent: I see no reason why the tenant of a county council smallholding should not apply for this in the same way as he applies for any other grant. The county council smallholder can benefit and, indeed, I would wish him to do, just like any other occupier.

Mr. Champion: The three of us have talked about the small dairy farmer. It seems to me that the scheme will apply to a farmer who is not necessarily a milk producer; it will apply also to a man who is rearing store cattle. That is clear, is it not?

Mr. Nugent: Yes. This will apply to any farmer who makes application for the grant. We shall ask him to give an undertaking that he intends to make silage. Anyone who wishes to conserve grass in order to feed it to cattle will benefit from the scheme, and I hope that the rearers and the beef men will go in for it just as much as those who deal with dairy cattle.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Nugent.]

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Champion: This is one of the Bills which will quickly become an Act with the co-operation of this side of the House, because the Third Reading will not take long.
It is not much good having this Measure unless fairly extensive use is made of it. One is often surprised, when talking to farmers, to find that they are not completely aware of the services available to them and, in some cases, of the grants available. Not all farmers read the agricultural Press. Not all of them find the time, and some do not even try. Therefore, it is essential to use all possible ways to bring this Bill to the notice of the farmer, and particularly the small farmer.
I do not agree with the suggestion that the small farmer cannot or will not make silage; in fact, I believe that because the job of conserving grass can be spread over many months by this method, silage-making is much easier than conserving grass by the hay-making method. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who said on Second Reading that there should be more co-operative use of machinery by the small farmers, but I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman about the siting of silos, for there cannot be co-operative use of them by farmers. That idea is not practicable. However, the use of machinery in silage making is practicable and should be encouraged, for it is not necessary to squeeze the making of silage into the small number of days necessary for hay-making.
For that reason I believe this to be a Measure which will help the small farmer and that it might even stimulate him to use machinery co-operatively. Our farmers do not lend themselves easily to co-operation in the use of machinery or anything else. I wish they would do more of it, following the example of Denmark and some other countries. This Bill will certainly help them, and I hope that it will also help them to co-operate with each other.
The Minister has followed the unusual course of inviting early applications, and on Second Reading I said for this side of the House that we have no objection. What is now necessary is that these provisions should be made widely known. Farmers should not only be encouraged


to use this Measure to the full, but should be stimulated into doing so. The appropriate part of the National Agricultural Advisory Service should be put on to the job of bringing this scheme to the notice of farmers and encouraging them to make proposals.
I also hope that farmers will be advised as to the best methods of making the silage, its use, and especially as to the siting of the silos. There is something to be said for the experiment of permitting cows to feed themselves from the silo, and it may well be that an extension of that idea would result in a saving of farm labour which would be well worth while.
Finally, I wish the Minister well in the application of this scheme. I hope that it will be the success which we all desire.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. Nugent: May I reply to the good wishes of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) in sending this little Bill on its way? First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Members of the Opposition generally for the help which they have given us in speeding the passage of the Bill. We much appreciate that. It is urgent to have the work put in hand this winter ready for next year, as it is during the winter months that the farmers can build the silos ready for the coming season.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall spare no effort to give full publicity to this scheme. As I said a few moments ago, we have already widely circulated among the farmers a pamphlet, we have put out publicity through the farming Press, and we are asking our county agricultural committees and their staffs to give the widest possible publicity to the scheme. We are most anxious that this shall reach all farmers, including those who do not so readily read the farming Press or pamphlets. We are most anxious to help the small farmers and, as I have said, the scheme is designed so that the smallest fanner can use and get full benefit from it.
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said, that silage making is a most valuable process for every farmer, particularly the small farmer who can only do a little at a time, who is dependent on his own efforts, and who has to milk the cows every day and then fit in the rest of the work as best he can around that work.
Silage making is a process which can start at the beginning of the season in May, as soon as the grass is long enough to cut, and it can go on throughout the season. On the other hand hay making must be done at a certain time when the grass is fully grown and ripe, and fair weather is essential. Silage making can continue despite the weather, which is a tremendous advantage.
One of the reasons why we have included a provision for roofs is to give extra independence of the weather. There was some discussion during the Second Reading debate as to whether fixed roofs were necessary. Some people prefer to earth up the top of the pit or cover it with chalk, and some prefer to roof it for conservation. One aspect of the value of a roof which was not mentioned was its value during the process of silage making. The farmer who has a roof over his silage pit can make silage even when it is raining, without the silage suffering deterioriation, and with a much smaller use of such preservatives as molasses to keep the silage in good condition.
The process of silage making is, therefore, peculiarly helpful and suitable for the small farmer, and we intend to make every use of this scheme to try to sell him the idea of making silage. It has been of continuing concern to us that we have made so little impact on the small farmer up to date—not only this Government but previous Governments. Indeed, only about 7½ per cent. of farmers are making silage, and it is made from only about half a million acres. That is out of a total of 19½ million acres of grass in the United Kingdom.
It is evident, therefore, that the acreage of grass at present being used to make silage could be multiplied many times over, with great advantage to the farmers and to the national economy. I can certainly give the House the roundest assurance that it is our intention to make the utmost use of this Bill, and to give fresh impetus to silage making on farms, large or small, throughout the country. Once again, therefore, I thank the House for the help given in expediting this little Bill on its way.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

So much of the Lords Message [21st November] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Legh.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Select Committee of six Members appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider all Consolidation Bills (including Bills for Consolidating Private Acts), Statute Law Revision Bills and Bills presented under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in the present Session, together with the Memoranda laid and any representations made with respect thereto under the Act:

Mr. Philip Bell, Mr. Graeme Finlay, Mr. Forman, Mr. Janner, Sir Hugh Linstead, and Mr. Oliver:

Power to send for persons, papers and records; and to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Legh.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

Orders of the Day — PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS

Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally:

Sir John Crowder, Mr. Hesketh, Mr. Holman, Mr. Montgomery Hyde, Mr. Robert Jenkins, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. John Rodgers, Mr. Sparks, Dr. Barnett Stross, Sir Gordon Touche, and Mrs. Eirene White:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Legh.]

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT, NORTH-EAST ESSEX

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

11.51 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I intend to discuss three items: the closing of the Harwich-Antwerp steamship service; the loss of life in the Colne sand barges on passage between Brightlingsea and London; and the traffic on Eastern Avenue.
Before doing so, however, I wish to say how pleased I am with the co-operation which has been established between the North-East Essex Transport Committee and British Railways. This Committee was set up after the debate we had in this House over a year ago about the transport problems in North-East Essex.
The closing of the Harwich-Antwerp steamship service has been of concern to many people and not only in North-East Essex. The "Dewsbury", a vessel of 1,686 tons, is to be replaced by a vessel now being built without a vestige of passenger accommodation.
I know that the argument which will be put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary is that the passenger service has been in existence for some years and has not been used very much. But this service has hardly been advertised. Like some of the branch railway lines, although capital equipment has been considerably improved, not enough imagination seems to have been used to make these services more competitive. I am sure that, given adequate but not expensive publicity, the Harwich-Antwerp service would prosper.
At the present, bookings are discouraged. No proper provision exists for the issuing even of tickets. All manner of difficulties are placed in the way of potential travellers. For two years the clerks at Liverpool Street's Continental booking service were instructed to deny the existence of the route to casual inquirers. The Minister may well say that the new London-Brussels sleeper service will provide the alternative route to Antwerp, but I suggest that the trouble is that the official view of this service seems to be influenced by accountants with "London" minds.
The new London-Brussels through sleeper service will not in any way provide an alternative route to Antwerp for people living between Colchester, Chelmsford and Cromer and, indeed, outward from there west up to Cambridge. In any case, it will cost £19 compared with £8 on the Harwich-Antwerp service. If a little imagination were used, it would be quite possible to provide limited passenger accommodation in the new ship which is to replace the "Dewsbury".
All I ask is that there should be some passenger accommodation in this new packet. Were such accommodation properly advertised and provision made for the transportation of cars as well, I am sure that it would be a paying proposition for British Railways, as well as serving a public need and helping the inhabitants of East Anglia, many of whom have close connections with Belgium and Antwerp, to get over to the Continent that way.
Secondly, I wish to raise with the Minister the problem of preventing the loss of life on the Colne sand barges. The sand barge "Alpheus", which was lost with two young Colchester lives on passage from Brightlingsea to London in early November, was the fourth in the trade to be lost within about a year. On Trafalgar Day, 1955, the "Helen of Troy" was lost with two lives. Beside this loss of life the crews of the "Fence" and "Shawford" were fortunate to be rescued at that time, and it should not be forgotten that the "Away" was lost just before the war, with her crew.
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, despite these disasters, the Ministry of Transport, which is so meticulous about its safety demands and standards for coastal shipping, regards the passage from Colchester to London as a safe and easy one and that no Plimsoll mark is required. I understand that alteration of the safety precautions does not require legislation, as I was in touch with the Ministry last week. If it had, I should certainly have endeavoured to have covered it in the opportunity I had last Wednesday for private Members' legislation. I understand that this is a matter of regulation, but I cannot understand why motor barges trading from London to Harwich are subject to various regulations which do not apply to the Colne.
Perhaps the argument is that on a land map it is a shorter distance to the Colne than to Harwich, yet anyone knowing anything of the East Coast appreciates that really dangerous waters are common to both voyages. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to inquire most fully into these losses and to see whether stricter loading regulations are required and whether other precautions are necessary.
Finally, may I ask the Minister why his Ministry has not been able to deal with the suggestion I made over a year ago regarding Eastern Avenue? I am convinced that the gaps in the barrier between the double track roadway are a cause of accidents, several of which I have seen myself. They are also a most unnecessary brake on the speed and flow of traffic out from London. I should like not only to see these gaps in the roadway closed, but, also, traffic allowed to enter Eastern Avenue only by the roundabouts. It is tragic to see this road, which is just as good as many of the motorways on the Continent, being spoilt and made almost a secondary road because of lack of foresight and imagination. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that some bold planning is under way for Eastern Avenue.
Those are the problems that I wished to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope that the Ministry has particularly in mind the need of the small man and will not look upon the railways just from the London point of view and making them pay. Unless the small man is looked after the railways will not pay, because there will not be displayed sufficient imagination to make them pay.

12 noon

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) for having given me advance notice of the points which he said he would raise in the House this morning. I am also grateful to him for giving me an opportunity of saying something about these three very important matters, particularly from the point of view of East Anglia.
My hon. Friend asked that my right hon. Friend should pay particular attention to the small man in respect of railways. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to see, in so far as he is responsible


for these matters, that not only the large centres and the businessmen should be served from what my hon. Friend called "the London point of view", but that the new plans for the railways should take into close consideration the requirements of all and sundry all over the country.
I share with all hon. Members a sentimental pang at the withdrawal of the "Dewsbury", the vessel which normally performs the twice-weekly Harwich-Antwerp run. Everybody is sorry to see the passing of an old friend. The "Dewsbury" is 46 years of age, and old age is just as serious a matter in a ship as it can be in a human being. The "Dews-bury" is now reaching the end of her allotted span of economic life.
The Commission has placed an order for a replacement vessel which should be delivered some time in 1958. The "Dewsbury" will, of course, continue in service till then. In the design of the new vessel particular attention has had to be paid to the efficient conveyance of containers, for which there is an ever-increasing demand. The Commission has most carefully considered the question of incorporating passenger accommodation in it, as in the "Dewsbury", but I am afraid it has had to be decided that, owing to present-day costs of building and maintenance, the provision of passenger accommodation would be financially unjustifiable. That is the reason why that cannot be done. To provide room for passengers would necessarily reduce the space available for cargo and containers, which would in turn affect a very valuable export traffic. I understand that the Commission's views on this matter conform with those of other shipowners in similar trades.
There are, even now, alternative routes for passengers travelling from the South of England to Antwerp, by way of Harwich and the Hook of Holland, and via Dover-Ostend. I readily recognise that they will not help people living in East Anglia very much. These facilities will be augmented in the summer, when a through sleeping-car service will be introduced via Dover and Brussels, with a connection to Antwerp provided by the half-hourly electric train service, the journey time of which takes about forty minutes. This new through sleeping-car service should provide a most

convenient means for people travelling from the South of England, in general, to Antwerp. Passengers will be able to leave London in the evening and arrive at Antwerp in good time the following morning, after a night's sleep.
The main point made by my hon. Friend at the beginning of his remarks was that one of the reasons for withdrawing the passenger element of this service was that it might not seem to have been successful but that the real reason was that there had not been proper advertising. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend to that extent. There has been space for only 12 passengers on the "Dewsbury," and that has been advertised and still is advertised in the British Railways Continental timetables and also in timetable folders relating to the services to Belgium. The only reason for the stopping of the passenger element is that the Commission has decided, because of the alternative means of travel—though perhaps from my hon. Friend's point of view they are not so suitable—that it would be wrong to make space available for passengers in the new vessel and it should be kept to serve the general interests of a valuable export trade.

Mr. Ridsdale: Can my hon. Friend honestly say that the advertising has been adequate for that service? Is he aware that the service has not been known to many people who have been travelling on other routes? It has been in the official handbook, but no steps have been taken to draw it to the notice of the public. If that had been done I am sure that many more people would have used it. Indeed, I can mention myself; I did not know anything about the existence of this route, and I am the Member of Parliament for Harwich. I would ask that further consideration be given to this point of view. My hon. Friend seemed to skate over the point very lightly.

Mr. Profumo: It would be very remiss of me if I were to assert that anything had been done adequately if the Member of Parliament for the division was unaware of it himself, particularly as my hon. Friend is assiduous in his duties. I will not go as far as to say that I am satisfied that the advertising has been up to the standard which my hon. Friend and many of his constituents would require, but I would point out that there has been the normal, standard advertising.
The real point is that there have been places for only 12 people and that even if there had been advertising in a large way—which the Commission would regard as an uneconomic spending of money—the "Dewsbury" could carry only 12 people. Even if those 12 places had been most constantly taken the Commission still feels that it would be an uneconomic use of space to provide for passengers in designing the new ship, as there are alternative ways and means of getting across. I will not labour this point, as I cannot expect my hon. Friend to agree with me, but that is the reason.
I will leave the question of the barges till last, as it is the most important matter that my hon. Friend raises. I will pass to the question of the London—Colchester road. I naturally reread the speech which my hon. Friend made on 15th July. I read the speech, of course, at the time. He asks this morning why nothing has been done since that debate and since he has raised various matters concerning the London—Colchester road. I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on those points.
It was decided to close 21 gaps in the central reservation where this trunk road, the A.12, has dual carriageways between London and Colchester, and to resite a a further eight. Nineteen gaps have now been closed and seven have been resited. In an attempt to make existing gaps more conspicuous, on the stretch between Margaretting and Widford the kerbs near the point of entry have been painted black and white, and small signs have been erected on the verge to indicate the presence of openings. My right hon. Friend is keeping a close watch on this road, and he will take such action as is necessary and practicable for the improvement of the layout, in the interests of safety.
Incidentally, my hon. Friend might like to recollect that it was not until 1st October last, when Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, came into force, that my right hon. Friend had any clear powers under which to build continuous central reservations in existing roads, or to close existing gaps. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates that this trunk road was not built with motorway standards in view. Being an old road, it has been joined by many side roads, of which the public has made considerable use for a very long time. I have no doubt

that the closure of the side roads would be opposed most vigorously by the local authorities concerned and by the public at large. Any attempt to consolidate these side roads by diverting them into fewer accesses to the trunk road would give rise to similar opposition. Such diversions would involve the acquisition of a considerable amount of property.
The rights of access enjoyed by the public would not be met by carrying the side roads either over or under the trunk road, nor would the expense of such an operation be justified on that particular road.
My hon. Friend, in his previous speech on this subject, mentioned the question of additional lay-bys for buses. So that he should not think that point has been overlooked by my right hon. Friend, I can say that additional lay-bys for buses are being and will be provided as and when funds permit. On this trunk road in Colchester 12 bus lay-bys have been provided in the last year.
Now I come to the question of loss of life on Colne barges. With certain exceptions, all ships registered in the United Kingdom must have a load line if they are to go to sea. Of course "ships" includes barges. In the application of the load line law, a ship is regarded as going to sea when its voyage takes it outside partially smooth water limits. As the voyage from Brightlingsea to London can be made wholly within partially smooth water limits, even during the winter season, it is not regarded as a sea voyage and barges engaged on it do not, therefore, have to have a load line. Several barges, however, do have a load line. For ships which have a load line it is the responsibility of the owner or the master to see that they do not proceed to sea in an overloaded condition.
For ships which do not come under the load line law, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend is limited to his general power for inspecting ships for seaworthiness. My Department's marine surveyors carry out such inspections when opportunity offers, but the responsibility for seeing that ships do not sail in an unseaworthy or overloaded condition, whether inside or outside partially smooth water limits, rests fairly and squarely with their owners and masters. It is quite true that a stretch of water like the


Thames Estuary is subject to the effects of bad weather conditions to the extent that small vessels might find it perilous to sail at such times. Whether to sail or not in certain weathers is a matter for the judgment of the master, whether he is the master of a barge or of an Atlantic liner. Naturally, if he exercises judgment with prudence, and proper attention is paid to the weather conditions, as well as to the seaworthiness and capabilities of his ship, the voyage can be made with much greater safety.
There are about 150 self-propelled barges regularly engaged in trade in the Thames Estuary, and in the last ten years the number of these barges which have become total losses is fifteen. Of those fifteen, six have been lost by collision or fire. The remainder, on an average less than one a year, have been lost mainly because of the occurrence of a defect in the hull. The number of lives lost in the same period has, for all casualties, according to the information at my disposal, been eight, of which four resulted from collisions. Of the remaining four, as my hon. Friend mentioned, two were from the "Helen of Troy" in October, 1955, and two from the "Alpheus," to which my hon. Friend also referred.
A preliminary inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts into the latest casualty is now in progress. The purpose of that preliminary inquiry is to enable my right hon. Friend to decide

whether a formal—that is, a public—investigation should be ordered. I know my hon. Friend will understand that as the matter is sub judice it would be improper for me to comment on the circumstances of that casualty. I can say, however, that the "Alpheus" had a load line.
My hon. Friend asked if we would inquire very carefully into the whole problem. Quite apart from investigations into the loss of lives, my Department is at this time reviewing the circumstances of the casualties in this area, together with similar casualties which have occurred around the coasts of the United Kingdom, in order that my right hon. Friend can decide whether or not there is any action which he can properly take to increase safety on barges on such voyages as those between Brightlingsea and London.
I hope that what I have been able to say on these very important subjects will have reassured my hon. Friend that the matters which he has so close to his heart are receiving careful consideration by my right hon. Friend and my Department. I can give him the assurance that I will read most carefully all he has said and that the Department will study the problems which he has raised this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Twelve o'clock.